1921 REVIEWS OF BOOKS 435 l'Orne, H. 2151). This grant, if genuine, would belong to the period 1023-6. But it is known to us only through a confirmation attributed to Philip I which is generally regarded as apocryphal ; 1 it contains anachronisms and chronological inconsistencies ; and it is inconsistent with the account of the foundation of St. Leonard which has come down to us in an authentic document of earlier date, which M. du Motey has utilized for another purpose (p. 261). This is a record of a plea held in the Conqueror's Curia between 1070 and 1078 respecting the rights of the bishop of Seez (Archives de l'Orne, H. 2156 ; Round, Calendar of Documents in France, No. 1190). The record states that St. Leonard was founded in accordance with the orders of Pope Leo (IX) by William Talvas (II) ; and that this was proved by men of great age who had witnessed the founda- tion. Since witnesses were produced it is clear that the foundation cannot have been authorized by any other Leo than Leo IX. We are therefore justified in eliminating this fifth charter from our list of authorities. Of the chroniclers there is practically but one who has devoted special attention to the Talvas family. This is Orderic Vital is, whose animus against the malefica prosapia is undisguised. Orderic's information is distributed between his edition of William of Jumieges and his own Historia Ecclesiastica. It is very largely a tissue of scandals which reached St. fivroul through the Giroie family, and particularly through Renault d'fichauffour, who was a monk of St. fivroul in Orderic's time. 2 St. fivroul had been re-founded by Guillaume de Giroie, the grandfather of Renault, and one of the reputed victims of the Countess Mabel; and, perhaps for this very reason, the house appears to have been singularly oppressed by Robert II of Belleme. 3 Orderic was therefore naturally disposed to believe any charge against the Talvas family, however improb- able it might be. M. du Motey has devoted himself with some success to exposing the more outrageous of Orderic's calumnies (pp. 223, 251), but it is curious to find him basing his history of the origins of the Talvas upon a statement from this source which appears to be particularly open to criticism. According to Orderic 4 Yves I of Belleme made his debut in the year 945 by helping to rescue Richard I of Normandy from the grasp of Louis d'Outremer. But it is very improbable that Yves, whose charter to l'Abbayette is dated 997, and who is reported on fairly good evidence to have been still alive in 1005 (p. 120), should have been of man's estate as early as 945. The improbability increases when we observe that an uncle of Yves, Bishop Sigefroy of Le Mans, was alive in 997, in which year he joined with Yves to found l'Abbayette. Two such cases of longevity in the eleventh century would be indeed remarkable. M. du Motey not only accepts Orderic's story but proceeds to build upon it. He argues that the charter of Yves to Notre -Dame de Belleme was issued soon after 945, while Yves was still at variance with Louis d'Outremer. 1 See Prou in Melanges de Paul Fabre (1902), pp. 215-32. 2 Hist. Ecc., ed. Prevost, ii. 110. 3 Ibid. iii. 421 ; iv. 307-
- Ibid. iii. 88, and Orderic's edition of William of Jumieges, bk. iv, ch. 4 (ed. Marx,
p. 152). Ff 2
